Nato and the soviet union - 19 on 1?

[lostsoul]

i never seriously looked into NATO before, but today while reading a bit, it seems their sole purpose was to destory the soviet union.

How can a country like the soviet union that had so many internal problems(i have only studied the politics of that country and their seemed like constant struggles within the party), how can a country like this make at least 19 countries scared enough to join together and fight them?

europe got fucked in world war 2, but so did the soviet union. So why did america need to unite so many countries against them?

[Cassius Clay]

Because Capitalists hate Socialism. The Capitalists in Germany together with plenty of other nations had invaded the USSR in 1941 and had been smashed. It jus tso happened that the Imperialists in Britian and America were not up to the idea of letting Germany become the top boss. The U$ realised, rightly that they would need a unified political and military bloc if they were able to take the USSR on.

The Nazis were inefficient and never realised the full potential of how much there factories could produce. They were also bad at diplomacy which meant that they failed to get the other Imperialists on their side and were deserted by there other allies when things got tough. To the U$ credit they knew that this could not happen if they were to win a war, be it the Cold one or one that went hot.

You must also remember that by 1949 when NATO was formed the USSR had numerous allies, including the most populace nation on earth China. Ignoring all the anti-American stuff for a moment, you can understand why to protect there interests, ideology and profit they needed to be on the whole unified front. They learnt from the Nazis on how not to fuck up.

Ofcourse any war would of probably ended up in a U$A/NATO victory. That was if they managed to keep a unified bloc and have no internal problems. The U$ at that time had a far superior nuclear arsenal, better bombers and fighters which matched the MiG 15's. They were also not war ruined, and they had no problems resorting to terrible bombing on civilians as seen in Korea, or Dresden. Note that the USSR during WW2 never went and carpet bombed cities, even when they easily could of.

The only problem for NATO is that the troops in western Europe of native origin were equiiped with vintage equipment. And Communists were very strong both militarily and politically at this time (1949). But if in doubt the U$ could of just nuked every centre of government in the socialist bloc aswell as the Red Army in eastern Europe proper. Whereas the USSR was not able to hit the U$ itself until the mid 1950's and couldn't be sure of getting a significant pay load through till they got ICBM's in the mid 1960's.

And that was probably the only time the USSR could of beat NATO in war. The period of say 1968 to 1978 was when both NATO and U$ armies were at their weakest, morale was awful in U$ army and France had virtually withdrawn from NATO. But by say 1983 thanx to Ronald Reagen's build up the U$ army and in turn NATO was beggining to be equipped with the armour, aircraft and such that would destroy the Iraqi army, conventionally atleast in 1991. And the USSR and the Red Army itself was by now full of national strife and ethnic tension, drug taking etc (basically the same problems that NATO had a decade eariler) and somehow I don't think a Pole would of been to happy dying for the USSR in 1984.

Hope that kinda helps.

[lostsoul]

Thanks for the information.

But it got me wondering, why didn't the USSR and China do alot when they were so powerful? As i was reading your post about the USSR's strenght against NATO in the 50's, i kept thinking about china's strength also(they took on the UN in korea). I know mao wanted to do alot, and unite the world.

But why didn't they? Am i wrong in saying, the dream died when stalin died? or was it something else?

[Cassius Clay]

I don't think it would of been possible for the Socialist bloc to of won in the arly 1950's. In terms of a conventional war atleast, with a few nukes thrown in. The East was war ruined and although it was recovering the effects of the previous war were visible. What people often do is mistake that it was the Soviets who had unlimitless man and women power. While the U$ population was just as large and had not had 10 million of there best troops killed.

Wheras the U$ bombing fleet could of been able to bomb all of the USSR's factories and the like, compared to the Nazis who could not beyond the Urals. It's difficult to see even the best USSR's bombers like the T-60 being able to get to America and bomb them to a equally devasting extent.

Although the MiG 15's did destroy the F-86 Sabres in Korea that was with aces from the Second World War. In terms of Armour on the ground again I'd have to give it to the U$. T-34's and IS-II's could smash most Axis tanks, but late in the war when small groups of Panthers and Tiger tanks came of the factory board they did infact play havoc with the Soviet armour. Imagine what NATO could do with larger numbers (the Nazis were very inefficient).

Ofcourse the Red Army did smash the best that the Axis armour could throw at them, even in the early days of 1941. And I could easily imagine the Red Army and there allies being able to be at the channel with relative ease. But then they face the same problem the Germans faced in 1940, invading Britain is nigh impossible. And this time Britain will have more defenders than Home Guard and a ruined army from Dunkirk.

That brings up the respective Navy's. In 1970's the Soviet navy was awesome, in the 1950's it's non existant. Despite all the numbers the PLA had nothing is going to stop General McCarthur from blowing every village up, with Nukes if he wants.

Simply put the U$A can not only harm the Socialist bloc but it can destroy it and make it not a nice place to go to for a few thousand years. The same cant be said about the USSR and the U$A in 1950.

Give us a conventional war in 1968 and have the PRC and USSR ally (they were more likely to go to war with eachother by then) then NATO would of been completly smashed.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 2:40 pm on July 7, 2003
I don't think it would of been possible for the Socialist bloc to of won in the arly 1950's. In terms of a conventional war atleast, with a few nukes thrown in. The East was war ruined and although it was recovering the effects of the previous war were visible. What people often do is mistake that it was the Soviets who had unlimitless man and women power. While the U$ population was just as large and had not had 10 million of there best troops killed.

Wheras the U$ bombing fleet could of been able to bomb all of the USSR's factories and the like, compared to the Nazis who could not beyond the Urals. It's difficult to see even the best USSR's bombers like the T-60 being able to get to America and bomb them to a equally devasting extent.

Although the MiG 15's did destroy the F-86 Sabres in Korea that was with aces from the Second World War. In terms of Armour on the ground again I'd have to give it to the U$. T-34's and IS-II's could smash most Axis tanks, but late in the war when small groups of Panthers and Tiger tanks came of the factory board they did infact play havoc with the Soviet armour. Imagine what NATO could do with larger numbers (the Nazis were very inefficient).

Ofcourse the Red Army did smash the best that the Axis armour could throw at them, even in the early days of 1941. And I could easily imagine the Red Army and there allies being able to be at the channel with relative ease. But then they face the same problem the Germans faced in 1940, invading Britain is nigh impossible. And this time Britain will have more defenders than Home Guard and a ruined army from Dunkirk.

That brings up the respective Navy's. In 1970's the Soviet navy was awesome, in the 1950's it's non existant. Despite all the numbers the PLA had nothing is going to stop General McCarthur from blowing every village up, with Nukes if he wants.

Simply put the U$A can not only harm the Socialist bloc but it can destroy it and make it not a nice place to go to for a few thousand years. The same cant be said about the USSR and the U$A in 1950.

Give us a conventional war in 1968 and have the PRC and USSR ally (they were more likely to go to war with eachother by then) then NATO would of been completly smashed.

i would also think going after the usa is impossible(if not because of their defeneses, then because of their geographic location).

But i thought it would be best if USSR tried to unite europe(perhapes playing a more aggresive role in starting revoluations), and China did the same for Asia. If most of europe and most of asia are united, then i doubt america will be as strong or can do anything.(other then physically fight themselfs or with little support).

I didn't study Stalin very indepth, but i have studied Mao, and although kind of sickening, Mao did mention that he wanted a war to make everyone socialist(thats where he said, perhapes 1/3 or 2/3 of the world will die, but the 1/3 that remains will regrow.)

Why didn't this happen? It seems to me, that killing a revolution is harder then creating it. The USA did alot of work to destory people's revolutions, if only china and USSR gave more support perhapes the outcome of history would be different.(but on the other hand, it would be very hard for them to support others since with NATO and UN after them, they had to constantly worry about protecting themselfs)